Planificación final

Bourdieu’s examination of journalism highlights the importance of Field Theory, in regards to the autonomy of the profession from economic and political spheres. By acknowledging that Bourdieu’s model of media research is still a work in progress and therefore an on-going testing system to study the worlds of journalism, it is a standpoint that cannot be exported to Latin American case studies; however, it is important to explore for the notion of journalistic field and subfield. This study will attempt to shed light on the dynamics of the journalistic field as a part of a larger systemic environment as well as war journalism as a highly specialised sphere within the profession.

This approach allows structuring a notion of the field in an organised manner. This research understands ‘field’, according to Bourdieu’s (in Benson & Neveu, 2005) configuration, as a network of objective relations among positions. Yet there are contradictions in this interplay; on the on the one hand, the field is regarded as a heteronomous arena (i.e., influenced by economy), and on the other it is seen as an autonomous phenomenon.

In this regard, Field Theory examines the institutional logic of the journalistic sphere; on one side there is the capital (social structures) and on the other the

structures. Therefore, this model is a framework to analyse the everyday praxis of journalism and the interactions with power structures (both Marx’s infrastructures and superstructures) linked with the Media Sociology and the Political Economy of Media (McChesney, 2008) approaches. It is particularly within these microstructures that it will be possible to look in-depth at the universe of Colombian war journalists in their field, considering all the geographical and cultural differences.

On another level this approach will help to develop an examination of the ‘journalist as an individual’ in which Bourdieu’s ‘Habitus’ plays a key role. This position points out how different categories are constantly interacting: education, social background (class), competition for ‘the scoop’, professional distinctions, constructions of identity, and agency (the latter can be understood as within the field, society and the media). This categorisation can help to comprehensively understand the ‘individual journalist’ (microstructure) within their agency of the media (macrostructure) and the dynamics between the two; the institutionalised rules and the praxis might give some autonomy to the field and transform power relations (Bourdieu in Benson & Neveu, 2005).

Following Bourdieu’s Field notion, Dominique Marchetti (2002) researched ‘specialised journalism’ as a journalistic subfield. By proposing a thematic specialization within the field, she created a dichotomy between the ‘generalist’ pole and the ‘specialised’ pole. In applying this concept to the journalistic field studied in this thesis, there is a specific dichotomy to analyse between Colombian journalists covering the conflict (namely Colombian war journalists) and their ‘generalist’ counterparts. Naturally the field and the subfield exist relationally; one does not obliterate the other. Rather, they coexist in an interlaced manner within the system of the professional field. Bourdieu suggests that we need to examine theories in our context (i.e., case study, Global South), to avoid the association of a theory with certain geography.

Zelizer proposes that journalists form a group of ‘interpretative communities’ which, in an organic way, develops joint interpretive strategies in order to make sense of the world (2010). Therefore, there is a sharing of interpretations by a

subgroup where ‘reporters use discourse and interpretation to discuss, consider, and at times challenge the reigning consensus surrounding journalistic practice...’ (2010:188). Amalgamated by their collective elucidations of their profession, newsmaking, experiences help them to build a guild with shared understandings of their practice.

In this regard, Oliver Boyd-Barrett (2004) categorised war reporting as a proper and unique category in journalism, given that this particular ‘genre’ requires increased competence from journalists when reporting: firstly, by keeping their independence and objectivity from the military, government and conflict parties. Secondly, ‘War provides a ritualistic challenge (...) that calls upon extraordinary resources and resourcefulness’ (p. 26); it demands a higher level of specialisation and competence of its journalists, given the dangerous environment in which they produce information. He states that this ‘genre’ has a propaganda agenda, as examined previously in the history of war reporting. This argument might be true given the origins of reporting during the Crimea War, yet lately war reporting as a ‘genre’ is transforming and these changes must be taken into account.

As stated before, French scholar Jean Chalaby (1996) argued that the profession of journalism, as an Anglo–American invention since its birth in the XIX Century, has evolved as an autonomous field of discursive production. According to this author, the formation of the journalistic field appeared in United States and Britain, parallel to the normative discursive practice of objectivity.

Alongside Bourdieu’s Field Theory, certain elements of Pamela Shoemaker and Stephen Reese’s Hierarchy-of-Influences Approach (1996) are relevant, such as the level of ‘personal factors of the journalist’, which in this research focuses particularly on the sub-themes of ideology, work ethos, class, age, education (Beathe, 2010, Zelizer, 2010 in Hanitszch) and professional values (see Schudson & Anderson, 2010). Secondly, the level of study is of the ‘journalistic routines’ of conflict journalists specifically, in order to analyse the practices and procedures that this subfield of study subjects might have as a professional guild. On this level several key factors must be analysed, such as work schedules, workload, perception of professional role (which is interwoven with insights into

their professional ethics), and sources (Berkowitz in Hanitzch, 2010). In regards to this final factor, it is important to note the frequency with which official sources—in this case army news releases, government and police statements— are utilised as a single source (routines). Thirdly, the level of ‘newsroom routines’ might help to understand the conditions under which information is produced. Therefore, Shoemaker & Reese’s Model helps to attain a better understanding of journalistic practices within the media sociology approach. Journalism scholars have argued that the understanding of the role of journalists (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986; Weaver, 1998) is different according to the country and media outlet. For instance, comparative studies shed light on the perspective of their profession as a mere news disseminators adhering to objectivity and neutrality, but also as constant guardians of government wrongdoing, such as key components of agenda setting, open bias of political ideology, and advocate of social causes.